Semiconductor companies realigning for 45 nm node

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

at the present time only intel and other large, customer-based fabrication facilities have the power to go it alone; but even so, at the 45 nm node and beyond (32 nm, 22 nm, 16 nm) the difficulties and expenses involved in creating new process generations will grow exponentially. some have said that validating a semiconductor-based product's design rules and implementing them into actual production is the most difficult job we have on planet earth, save possibly some of those faced by pharmaceutical companies.

with the cost of fabrication facility equipment being what it is (a few billion dollars for a 300 mm 65 nm wafer processing plant, for example), it's not surprising that building these amazing products that operate at such high speeds is truly a difficult thing. i've often said the fact that they work at all is almost a miracle. still, these things can be harnessed and propelled forward, albeit at great expense in money, design time, and talent.

for the 45 nm process node and beyond we are seeing some previous alliances potentially falling by the wayside, while other ones are springing into existence. one example is freescale semiconductor, which is now looking to partner with ibm for its future product lines. this change in focus from its previous alliance brings into question the solidity of any alliance moving forward.

mistakes made are going to make or break partnerships at these levels, and much more so than they did in the past. having several companies working together might seem anti-competitive, but the cost of manufacturing smaller and smaller semiconductor parts, those that operate at higher and higher clock speeds and integrate the latest design rules for their tiny transistors and bitlines, will become prohibitive for all but the largest companies. as such, the teamwork mentality is fully in play and will become absolutely pervasive, outside of possibly intel and a few other wide-ranging, customer-based fabrication facilities.

semiconductors crying(4:17pm est tue jan 23 2007)how is this different than the oil industry?

shell and bp are being flogged out back for all of their screw ups.

semiconductors are not the first industry to have to buddy up, to continue moving forward.

a few billion is the yearly operating budget to begin the process of drilling an oil field, and it takes almost a decade to see it begin production.– by koreberg

semiconductor isn't that different then any other bigindustry(6:40pm est tue jan 23 2007)in fact many industry experts agree that whats happening in semiconductor may leed to consolidation similar to what has happened in other big industry.

there used to be lots of oil companies, now there are 3-4 or 4 big ones.

there use to be one telecom company, they broke it up, the baby bells have now merged back into 3-4 big ones.

there use to be a lot of aerospace companies, now there are 3-4.

there used to be a lot of air carriers, they are slowly merging together as well.

why would semiconductor be any different. especially given how expensive fabs are becoming. a new 45nm fab is expected to cost more then what 75% of most semiconductor companies are worth. amd is a big semiconductor company and they are only worth 1-2 45nm fabs.

unless they grow significantly over the next decade they might only be worth one 22nm fab, then what do they do??? – by ee92

lol(6:42pm est tue jan 23 2007)“. some have said that validating a semiconductor-based product's design rules and implementing them into actual production is the most difficult job we have on planet earth, save possibly some of those faced by pharmaceutical companies.”

what semiconductor people said this? it might be tough, but this is due to scale. as we work on the nano side of research in universities we will find nice paths for making smaller and smaller devices do what we want and this will be effectively as hard as what is done today with the newer techniques.

i would argue that any industry has its hardships that if we could solve simply would cause the industry not to exist in the form it is today.

imagine taking a crude oil product or a matrix of cellulose, lignin, and hemi-cellulose and making paper, energy, chemical feed stocks, splitting fractions by a meir degree of boiling points at 1,000 of lbs/gallons per minute. these are not easy nor are they easy to get up and running from design to implimentation. for a green field pulp/paper plant you are looking at 1.4 billion for a 1,000 tons of paper a day production not including environmental issues and costs.

for just a refinery we are looking at 2.5 billion for 210,000 barrels of crude a year or a medium size refinery that will take up about 2 square miles and will create side plants around it that will take about 1.4 billion in capital investment to build. this cost again neglects environmental permits, and the cost to ship from the fields let it be a 6 billion dollar floating oil rig or to a oil field with who knows how many billion dollars wrapped up in capital investment.

ultimately one might have to partner up, but the larger companies most likely will not need to make the partnerships you are talking about. they have the resources (money) to go it alone, or buy the technology when it is solid tech.

this will be seen when the world starts switching from the oil age to the next.

as for semiconductors as they get smaller if the tech is not there to make the idea of 16nm the same as think of 65nm then the little guys will start to be meir contractors to the large or they will be bought. – by asdfasdfasd

another one bites the dust..(8:35pm est tue jan 23 2007)what this means is as the world moves to 45nm, 32nm and beyond the opportunity to leverage and differentiate with moores law now falls to one company, intel.

with everyone centering around ibm, this will result in a commodization and compromsing of the technology node as ibm takes payment and must satisfy the needs of all customers on a single platform. this will result in one very sub optimal design rule and processes as they have to satisfy the myrad of need for high performance, high density, low power, analog and many other divergent/conflicting requests.

lets pose this question. here you are with 6 customers with divergent needs around lowk ild. you going to pick 2 or three tool/material platforms and evaluate 4-8 different drs and stack ups with very different stresses all running different type of designs and topology and layout? oh, you do all this in one fab at the same schedule as you would if you were doing it alone. no

what you will get is the most conservative backend that supports the most restrictive or noisiest customer. sounds like a pretty un-exciting compromise. what does it leave the partners with? all buying the same tools from the same vendors running the same process, and what is their competitive advantage beside saying they have a 45 or 32nm process? nothing

for that matter everyone should just go to tsmc, umc, or charter and signup front for capacity. why bother at all…

in many ways why would you fault the companies that spend billions and throw thousands of people at being first to protect their investment and harvest the profits of their effort?

is it any wonder why the consortiums have always consistently produce suboptimal solutions when compared to a well funded single company competing with it. – by lexington_steele

technologist, geek, or ? (8:40pm est tue jan 23 2007)“it's not surprising that building these amazing products that operate at such high speeds is truly a difficult thing” i will challenge that 20 years ago, 10 years ago, or now that the technologist looking forward say scaling will stop or man this generation is really really hard..

“i've often said the fact that they work at all is almost a miracle”

as a technologist its no miracle at all currenlty but simply the harnessing of multiple disciplines. its more a mircale that the original al gate worked then the current atomic level thick gates work.

“having several companies working together might seem anti-competitive” so what should the reward be for the company that risk billions on its own to innovate to offer some better, first and to everyone? – by lexington_steele

brand new, just like 1991(11:24pm est tue jan 23 2007)“for the 45 nm process node and beyond we are seeing some previous alliances potentially falling by the wayside, while other ones are springing into existence.”

rick, this isn't just for 45 nm, the alliances have come and gone for years. actually, since ibm and motorola teamed up with apple to form the aim alliance in 1991, this relationship has actually been in flux for decades.

since motorola semiconductor has since been renamed freescale, and apple is now a customer of intel, i guess the new alliance would be called the if alliance… coincidentally, the new acronym sounds like a good fit.– by blrg

consortium effectiveness(11:44pm est tue jan 23 2007)it is not proper for a consortium to develop a manufacturing process common to its members. that is sure to be the lowest common denominator process. the consortia would best provide information from r&d that any single company would rather not spend the time or money doing on its own. the company can then focus its resources strictly on honing the mature process technologies. – by fdc

impact on vendors(11:56pm est tue jan 23 2007)the formation of more alliances could also complicate the relationships with vendors, i would imagine. the continuity of going from the individual companies' or old alliances' standards/specs to a new alliance's standards/specs would definitely be tricky, to say the least. the new multi-customer alliances may have the loudest voice though. – by fdc

ahem … anyone hear of outsourcing?(7:22am est wed jan 24 2007)why would someone without the huge investment potential that the likes of intel have bother to go into partnership with another similarly cash poor company?

tsmc and other foundries are doing the business! let them put the money into developing their fabs and meeting the needs as they happen. that way, the huge gamble of fab construction and kitting out doesnt have to be factored in to the overall costing of those companies.

virtual cpu companies only need their design engineers, with spend on r&u increasing as and when needed.

admittedly, ibm do have good fab background, and this supposed “partnership” with freescale could herald the dawn of a new age in such partnerships – but the foundry vision is one without major downfalls, as many a happy customer would say :) – by iknowiamright

intel collaborations(6:45pm est wed jan 24 2007)intel has obviously collaborated with other companies. it is most obvious in memory technologies. it has collaborated with stm on nor and phase-change memory, while also doing a joint nand venture with micron.

not to mention its membership in imec and sematech and other consortia. – by fdc